The Pac-12 Thread....

4SoCal,

     I thought that 85 was the "hardcap" and that a school can sign over 25 as long as it doesn't put a school over the 85 limit?

25 is also an annual hardcap. The exceptions are when a team has slots from the prior year, and an athlete enrolls during the spring semester of that school year. Teams routinely sign more than 25, because they have room in the prior years class due to players failing to qualify, or taking less than full 25 initial offers they can use. USC signed 30 in 2011, because 7 were early enrollees, starting school in January 2011, and were counted against the 2010 class, where USC had only signed 17 players who had actually enrolled at USC. Only 23 of the 30 counted against the 2011 class.

USC won't have that luxury in the future. They will surely take the full 15 allowed in 2013 and 2014, and won't be able to back count anyone in 2015 and ongoing, unless players leave the program in their first year.

Here's what the NCAA manual states:

15.5.6.1 Bowl Subdivision Football. [FBS] There shall be an annual limit of 25 on the number of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1) and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial counters) in football at each institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)

Here's the NCAA section that explains "back counting", and how midyear enrollees are treated. They immediately go against the 85 limit, but can be counted against either the current or next year, depending on whether the school has room to initially count them against the 25 annual limit in the current years class.

15.5.6.3.2 Recruited Student-Athlete Entering after Fall Term, Aided in First Year. [FBS/FCS] A student-athlete recruited by the awarding institution who enters after the first term of the academic year and immediately receives institutional financial aid (based in any degree on athletics ability) shall be an initial counter for either the current academic year (if the institution’s annual limit has not been reached) or the next academic year. The student-athlete shall be included in the institution’s total counter limit during the academic year in which the aid was first received.

My Gawd....I had no idea how deep the NCAA shaft went!!


It's Sandusky on an institutional level!! The strategy Kiffin and Haden are operating on aren't just for the next three years. It may be needed until 2020!! I'm stunned by this. Kinda depressed as well....


I can feel some chokelling going on out there on this news, even in the Pac.....



Why hasn't this been more exposed/explained? Why is the degree of this not known better by the general public? This stinks!       

4SoCalFan, OK, this raises another question. If we are limited to 15 each season for the next three years,only going above the 15 if we have saved from the previous year, what happens if our graduating class AND early departures add up to more than 15 in any or even every year for the next three? With a 15 limit, does that mean we fall below that 75?(unless we get walk-ons). Could that number drop each season further and further until those three years are done?


Could we in fact be down to 65, even 60 by year three? If that's the case, it would take at least to 2020 to recover the full 85 roster limit!


Do I have this right?    

The reason it's not known is now obvious. How many top recruits would come to USC knowing in a couple of years we could be way below any reasonable number on the roster to be anywhere near an elite team..... I wanna puke...

Could we in fact be down to 65, even 60 by year three? If that's the case, it would take at least to 2020 to recover the full 85 roster limit!


Do I have this right?    

It is possible to be well under 75. Starting this year, with the 15/75 limits, the only time we can go over 15, is to replace a first year counter that leaves the program. What that means, is that any recruit prior to the 2012 class, who leaves early, cannot be replaced. We can't go over 15 to replace a 2009,2010, or 2011 recruit who might leave early for the NFL, drop out of school, transfer, or receive a medical scholarship. The 15 is a hard cap until 2015, and we can only exceed it to replace a player from the prior years class who leaves the program and back count them to that class.

This is what is happening for the 2013 class. There were only 12 initial counters in the 2012 class(5 of the 17 were back counted to 2011), so we have an additional 3 scholarships for 2013, bringing the total to 18. Those three extra players will have to enroll in January 2013, to be counted in the 2012 class.

This is why all of the chatter about USC depth this year is comical, because it really isn't going to hurt this year, because the lack of 10 extra players, would be 10 more freshmen, which few, if any, would see the field much this year. The depth issue this year is a position and experience issue, not a scholarship reduction issue. The scholarship reduction issue will kick in strongly next year, especially if we lose players early, which is a very high probability. Hopefully, the players who commit to USC over the next few years will be in it for the long haul, even if they aren't receiving the playing time they want.

Does this mean no more JuCo transfers, or really any kind of transfer? I guess because those that you signed this year enrolled early they won't count against the 2012 cap, but from here on out it's 4 year players only. It might even make one think twice about these five star guys with stars in their eyes that are dreaming about the NFL.

I think a lot of pressure lies on Barkley. If he has a dream season it might show the new recruits that staying is worth it. If not, USC might see some early departures. Time can only tell.

I wouldn't worry. It won't be long before Kiffin gets USC in even more hot water.

Eirespal, I think the opposite might be true re Jucos. If the roster gets even lower and your have a critical missing piece and a scholarship left to offer, the Juco route may be the only option to fill in a starting position. A regular freshman having too long a runway to fill the slot.


At a guess, it would stay about the same, you would want them even less but be forced to even more....   

nwt,

I can tell you from experience that sholarship reductions don't hit you that hard the first two years they kick in about year 3 hard and then it takes about another 3 years to get your classes balanced.  The worst part of the whole deal is when you end up with small junior and senior classes that by default strips you of valuable experience and leadership.

Its tough to win with young teams and that is kinda the point of NCAA sanctions they are intended to hurt but the problem is they are not fair and they do not hurt the ones that caused the offense.  Jumping on a soapbox here but there really should be a process where the following can occur:

1.  Players that take inadmissible benifits should be pursued by the IRS to collect taxes and penalties on those benefits and penalties should be acessed to those that issue them.  Why this does not happen is beyond me both are clearly income evasion and should be prosecuted.

2.  The whole shady business should also fall under money laundering and be prosecutible under the RICO Act.

Note:  I know I am streatching a bit but I don't think it is unreasonable to make the individuals involved personally reponsible for their actions and for there to be REAL consequences for those actions.  I also think it is in the publics best interest that the integrity of the game be protected.  If Congress is going to spend millions holding hearings on steriod abuse in the pros which in my opinion is a huge waste of our money the above does seem to be reasonable.  Bottom line lets quit hammering the schools lets punish the crimminals.  That's my two cents and for the record I think that in the past Auburn, Alabama and USC have gotten unfairly hammered and innocent people punished.

cubufffan1, your comment on Kiffin doesn't strike as very well thought out. He's taken over in an unenviable situation and has the Trojans competing at the highest levels, at least so far.


If that's "hot water", then give me more..... 

Wild-Turkey1, good points. Yet waiting for any federal agency to make those kind of moves, especially logical ones, a waste of time. In USC's case, the issue is wannabe agents as well as real ones. Not alum or fans.


The NFL in conjunction with the NCAA could ban any agent that violates NCAA rules, That, to me, is simpler, faster and sends a message of "no more". The message sent to these guys by the NCAA now is "don't worry about it, you go scott free, we'll punish the school and the kids for your actions.


The IRS idea is cool although I'm not sure they haven't gone after these guys, at least for back taxes, if not evasion. Back taxes wouldn't get the public exposure of evasion charges....     

The NFL in conjunction with the NCAA could ban any agent that violates NCAA rules, That, to me, is simpler, faster and sends a message of "no more". The message sent to these guys by the NCAA now is "don't worry about it, you go scott free, we'll punish the school and the kids for your actions.

I vote both but nobody is exactly knocking on my door with a ballet either.

I'm kind of irritated with myself for not getting the full ramifications of these sanctions before now.


No wonder the Utah fans are giddy. They can see that in a couple of years, they could very well be the top dogs in the southern division....  

I wouldn't worry. It won't be long before Kiffin gets USC in even more hot water.

I hope that any future Colorado fans that join this thread are smarter and have more class.

WT, the problem with your proposal is that it makes too much sense. The NCAA does not like things that make sense.

I'm kind of irritated with myself for not getting the full ramifications of these sanctions before now.

You really have to live it to truly understand the ramifications; you are typically scared the first year then its like this isn't so bad we will be fine.  Then year 3 hits and you see the number of seniors on your squad and see the freshmen and sophmores stuggling on the field and then it starts sinking it.  Again I hate the whole deal and wish you guys the best the bright side is you are USC and you will recover as quickly as anyone in the country could.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but hasn't Kiffin shown a lack of understanding of the rules wherever he's been. Don't the places he's left have an awful lot of bad things to say about him?

It's like the guy who's been married 5 times and says all his wives were impossible to live with. Sometimes it's you. Well, It looks like the problem has been Kiffin.

I'm sorry I thought this was the PAC12 thread, not the kiss USC's ass thread.

Great analysis. That is the best explanation of the impact of the scholarship reductions I have seen. It paints a pretty pretty dire picture.  Early departures to the NFL are going to sting pretty bad. It seems USC will need substantial contribution from walk-ons beginning next season.

When was the last time a walk-on started for USC?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but hasn't Kiffin shown a lack of understanding of the rules wherever he's been. Don't the places he's left have an awful lot of bad things to say about him?

This might be on the Pete Carroll running of a program though, Lane and Sarkisian both committed secondary NCAA violations within their first few days on the job at Tennessee and UW respectively (a routine that seems to happen with every new UW football assistant now). But you can't really listen to what his past jobs have said, in Oakland he stuck to his guns while Al Davis tried sabotaging him to get out of paying him his contract and as with any person who leaves the SEC they hate him. Saban left LSU for Miami and all the talk was he was overrated anyways and wasn't even a good coach, won with another coach's player and so on but once he went to Alabama, LSU fans seemed to speak fondly of him, Southerners are weird like that.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but hasn't Kiffin shown a lack of understanding of the rules wherever he's been. Don't the places he's left have an awful lot of bad things to say about him?

You're wrong and you're forgiven. There have been zero issues with Kiffin at USC. Both when he was here as an assistant and as our head coach. If you want to say that it is Haden's short leash and having J.K. McKay as Assistant AD directly overseeing the football program is the reason for that, you'll get no argument from me. However, to claim that he is going to get USC in hot water again because of the minor violations that were committed when he was at Tennessee is just trying to be controversial for no reason other than to be controversial.

It's like the guy who's been married 5 times and says all his wives were impossible to live with. Sometimes it's you. Well, It looks like the problem has been Kiffin.

Kiffin's biggest problem at Tennessee was his mouth. Having a big mouth is not an NCAA violation. Kiffin has had 2 head coaching jobs in college, Tennessee and USC. There was minor trouble at Tennessee (most of which, by the way, were not committed by Kiffin) and there has been zero trouble at USC. This hardly is a track record of 5 failed marriages and hardly looks like Kiffin has "been the problem". In fact, the coach at Tennessee that really got in trouble with major violations was long-time respected coach Bruce Pearl. His violations were severe enough that they cost him his job.

I'm sorry I thought this was the PAC12 thread, not the kiss USC's ass thread.

You are correct, it is a PAC-12 thread. What it is not, is an attack other programs with baseless allegations thread. I would also expect that a Colorado fan would want to be a little careful about throwing allegations at another program, otherwise, Katie Hnida might become a topic of conversation.